Big article on the backstory to MyMagic+

[DDLand]

The article is an interesting read, but DDLand, your #6 points out there is always a price to pay for the access they were allowed: there hasn't been an infrastructure project in the history of corporations that didn't have an official timeline.

Never

Why? Because everything - from yty budget, to hiring, to staffing, to training, to capex expenditures for equipment, to time and materials contracts with your partners to..... and on and on and on. It's a silly thought

For your #2? Even the article said BoD approved it at 1 bill in 2010m 0r 2011, with an expected Feb 2012 deployment. That was followed by Disney having to bring in the big guns (like Accenture, and there were several more, btw)who eat money like it's free pizza, to help keep things going - unbudgeted. Then a 2 year delay with many,many, more mouths to feed on an hourly contracted basis, and many, many fixes to be made that we all experienced - the state of MDE for 2 years rings a bell I hope.

Then, the author took the suits word that it came in under budget - and that pretty much says it all as to the true investigative side of this. There's a price to pay for access with these things.....

Indeed, I clearly marked that could be spin. I'm pretty much 100% in agreement on that.

Where did you see "the author took the suits' word?" I'm not sure that I saw that substantiated by any language in his article or on the Q&A. In fact it seems like quite the opposite. He's confident in that number. He's had it in his own word's "substantiated by multiple sources." He said specifically "And the fact is, one thing that became increasingly stressful for teams as the program continued on is that they were running out of resources to complete NGE." Notice he said that it was stressful for the teams. He talked to the frontline soldiers. Not the "suits" exclusively.

 

[bwang123]

No...that's not at all what I'm saying...I'm saying that Disney can only make correlations - guestimates linking magic bands and profits...in this scenario.

This is not a new product roll out...it is simply replacing one tool (key to the world) with another (magic bands) to sell what amounts to the same products (merch, food, because, tours, tickets, etc)

Not entirely true, with the magic bands, they introduced FP+ and increased consumer awareness of how to use FP+ with Magicbands. Previously a low percentage of people were utilizing FP effectively, now its probably closer to 100%. This part of it alone could add to customer satisfaction and their likelihood of recommending visiting the parks to others.

For Iger to recommend a billion dollar project to the board and it actually get approved, he had to have extensive data on how it would improve the parks (technology wise and for customers) while leading to increased revenue to make back that money eventually. He didn't just come up to the board one day and ask for a billion dollars. To show the success, he would have to show data from before the magic bands and after so they have ways to track it and its not exactly a "guestimate", that's not how corporations work.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Imagineers can't control what people look at, and to think they can shows exactly what kind of hubris annoys me about them. The type of people who look at their phone nonstop at Disney are going to do the same thing whether they are in Paris, Dubai, etc....

What you describe as "hubris"...is the EXACT history of imagineering...
From day 1.

Immersion through visual direction.


Times have changed...but if imagineers give up on this concept...it will be like Blucher coming out of the woods at Waterloo

 

[ThurlFan]

Previously a low percentage of people were utilizing FP effectively, now its probably closer to 100%.

So they spent a billion dollars to coerce people into using a concept that already existed. Sounds like a money well spent to me!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The article barely mentions FP+, which is the really controversial change as far as I can tell. I see very few complaints about MagicBands. They may or may not be profitable compared to the investment but that's mostly an academic or insider dispute that most guests couldn't give a hoot about. Most people who use MBs seem happy about them and the people who don't use them are happy to tour the parks without them. No controversy there except very mild concerns about tracking, which is a nothing-controversy because you can obviously still happily visit WDW without wearing a MB.

But FP+ is getting all kinds of heat, for very good reasons. To name just one, it's a bit bizarre to think that most people will be happy to reserve a 3-minute theme park experience, 2 months in advance. Without knowing a single thing about the future weather, family tiredness and mood, the crowd levels of the parks and on specific rides, or sometimes not even knowing what the rides actually are and whether or not they're worth reserving. If you go on a beach vacation, do you want to reserve two months in advance what date/time you're going to go boogie-boarding for 10 minutes, or the date/time you're going to rent a bike to ride up and down the boardwalk? Let alone when you're going to want pizza and ice cream and when you'll feel like steak and beer.

Given that bizarreness, a lot of the other problems unfold from there. What is a "fair" number of ride reservations everybody should get, in a park that has either an abundance or a lack of interesting attractions? How fair or unfair can you be to the people who didn't make FP+ rezzies 60 days ago, or who were too tired to use their 7DMT rezzies yesterday, and who are lined up either at a FP+ kiosk or in a standby queue right now? What if the app crashes for them or the wifi doesn't work? How many problems involving glitches with the reservation of a 3-minute ride, needing cast member intervention, does it take to completely wipe out the slender profit margin you calculated you would achieve by rationing rides and cramming more people in the parks?

I think that the author of the article got too wrapped up in "ace reporter" dirt digging and personality-analyzing and missed the real story, which is actually crowd-sourced at places like this forum.

Bingo...and to take it a step further...

Fast pass + is the only thing "new" about the magic bands at all...except for the delightful feel of rubber on your skin...

Everything else was on your room key...and swiping wasnt that tough.

It's also not a product...it's swapping one included with admission service for another.

So from the cost accounting/ profit perspective - it's quite simple: fast pass will allow less time in lines and increase more gift and food purchases. How can you quantify that? They try their best but ultimately they can never know the reasons why things are bought and when within an individual guests days. It's like a quest for the holy grail. I'm not saying they have no idea... They are great with data/analysis...but this concept it very similar to predicting the weather - there is always a higher margin of error than you can swallow and still accept the conclusion as "fact".

It's also the exact same as the premise behind fastpass in 1998. And it's widely accepted that they hated the results they came to there.

Because its foolhardy to think that a scheduling system at the prices they charge will put everyone in a good mood.

Since magic bands, I book less sit down dining (because of the 24 hour policy) and I spend even less time in shops than I did (because of juggling ride windows and dining windows)...naturally. So I spend less...not even on purpose. I can't be alone.

And the warts of the fast pass + system are very evident...primarily to us frequent offenders...

Tiering
They just don't have enough. The magic bands were built on the premise that there was "plenty to do". That is incorrect. Once they took the flexibility away from the front line rides with a prebooked window - it's a big problem.

The only way this system gets everybody happy and the spending truly increases - discounting price increases/inflation - is with capital investment in the parks.

They know it...they are glossing over it...and we are being drug behind the yacht and have been.

Why? Because Walt Disney probably thought more about 2025 in 1955 than bob Iger does in 2015.

The difference between a movie studio and a billion dollar conglomerate.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

So they spent a billion dollars to coerce people into using a concept that already existed. Sounds like a money well spent to me!

Yep... We don't go over this too much around here...but that is essentially what had happened.

And I've yet to see any valid defense of why that's a better thing except "it's better because they say so"...with very little analytical thought put into it.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

Well I think the big point to this article was the backstory and how this came about. How the imagineers were against it and how leadership changed many times during the development. As for what everyone should get I've heard Disneys target number they have studied is if a guest gets 10 experiences in a day they are happy, that includes rides, parades, shows, meet and greets etc. so if I ride my 3 rides eat at BOG, meet Mickey and Anna and Elsa, watch the parade, go to a show, watch MSEP, and then wishes, That's 10. That's actually probably not a terrible day for the typical guest. For us Disers we would want more. We are also outnumbered by the typical first timer or every 5 years or so type guest. I will say however this is the best non-disney pushed article I've seen. There isn't disney pixie dust spread all over trying to sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.

From the CMs we spoke with in September and March this isn't very accurate any more. They estimated they spend 60% of their day trying to justify the "experience". The real analytics that need to be examined is the customer experience after the fact. The impact of negative customer experiences is felt years down the road when people opt for another choice based on the experience they had on their last trip. Sometimes targeting a short term boost has a long term negative drag.

 

[DDLand]

And I've yet to see any valid defense of why that's a better thing except "it's better because they say so"...with very little analytical thought put into it.

It's better because the customers say so.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It's better because the customers say so.

I'm not gonna dispute this contention... Because we fundamentally disagree on the "obligation" of Disney to report their internal research without spin...

But I'm gonna offer my favorite example:
When they modified the Disney dining plan - circa 2007-2008 ish - they eliminated the appetizer and the included gratuity.

The reason was to limit the guaranteed earning of servers and increase revenue/profits. Two time honored traditions in wdw operations.

And that is ok as
A business decision.

You know what they said at TDO?

"Guests and employees wanted it"

Their "data" told them that people wanted less food (at basically the same price then and much more now)...and the workers wanted to have to work harder for their pay without a net...

I'm just not really in need of an argument with gems like that. And there are many.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

It's better because the customers say so.

Which customers and to which parts? Personally I don't mind anything about if with the exception of the FP+ but we also aren't people who want dining experiences because we don't want to lose 2 hours on eating unless it's dinner somewhere after AK day so the ADRs are kind of meaningless for us. Where I think the big issue is going to come from is you can't seperate the good from the bad and what's good is cool but what's bad is really bad and from a consumers perspective one negative typically outweighs any number of positives.

 

[rteetz]

Which customers and to which parts? Personally I don't mind anything about if with the exception of the FP+ but we also aren't people who want dining experiences because we don't want to lose 2 hours on eating unless it's dinner somewhere after AK day so the ADRs are kind of meaningless for us. Where I think the big issue is going to come from is you can't seperate the good from the bad and what's good is cool but what's bad is really bad and from a consumers perspective one negative typically outweighs any number of positives.

WDW has the problem with its guests not having a voice because the first timers and every so often guests outnumber the frequent visitors and locals by a lot. Many of those first timers of course don't know there was a legacy FP so FP+ is what they know and get to like. TDO is a much different in the way it operates compared to TDA.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

WDW has the problem with its guests not having a voice because the first timers and every so often guests outnumber the frequent visitors and locals by a lot. Many of those first timers of course don't know there was a legacy FP so FP+ is what they know and get to like. TDO is a much different in the way it operates compared to TDA.

Correct...and we are in an economic/travel boom... So that reality is not called into question/irrelevant.

The first recession with the magic bands will be more telling.

Disney always sells in good times. Always. The brand/ears have always proven that.

It's when people aren't walking around with their credit card armed at all times that the truth shakes out.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

WDW has the problem with its guests not having a voice because the first timers and every so often guests outnumber the frequent visitors and locals by a lot. Many of those first timers of course don't know there was a legacy FP so FP+ is what they know and get to like. TDO is a much different in the way it operates compared to TDA.

I also think they just aren't asking now because they don't want answers. It used to be everytime we visited we would get a survey about our experiences but we've been twice since this was implemented and no survey from either visit.

 

[DDLand]

I'm not gonna dispute this contention... Because we fundamentally disagree on the "obligation" of Disney to report their internal research without spin...

But I'm gonna offer my favorite example:
When they modified the Disney dining plan - circa 2007-2008 ish - they eliminated the appetizer and the included gratuity.

The reason was to limit the guaranteed earning of servers and increase revenue/profits. Two time honored traditions in wdw operations.

And that is ok as
A business decision.

You know what they said at TDO?

"Guests and employees wanted it"

Their "data" told them that people wanted less food (at basically the same price then and much more now)...and the workers wanted to have to work harder for their pay without a net...

I'm just not really in need of an argument with gems like that. And there are many.

That's not really related to the conversation at hand.

Intent to return rates and intent to promote rates are up. Those were lagging during 2007, and now they're trending higher. I'd love to see how they spun those numbers.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

That's not really related to the conversation at hand.

Intent to return rates and intent to promote rates are up. Those were lagging during 2007, and now they're trending higher. I'd love to see how they spun those numbers.

You missed point entirely...

And that point is the questions are often tailored to the results...not all, but the ones designed for PR.

That example I gave...I'm sure the question was "do you feel the amount of food given in the dining plan is a. Too little b. just right c. Too much"

I think I answered it - actually. That's a loaded question... As the answer was going to be "too much or just right" based on the program in place. And alot of those answers are based on TIME... because they were running 2 1/2 hour meals.

That is a legitimate poll result built 90% on false pretenses.

And they say the results. On the important data... The results are usually not released. That info is used internally for decisions and is sealed.

Believe it or not.

There is no SEC requirement to release/report voluntary information gathering... Just like market studies.

I've seen repeated references here recently giving me the idea that people think there is.

They're not lying on a bank loan or using enron's accountants...

If you continue to think there is a "no spin" law on the books to govern Disney's polling...you're going to swing and miss on the outside slider everytime you read a suit's comments.

You will never see a negative reaction or opinion contrary to a proposed/implemented project. Period.

Just like "we found the parks were struggling In 2005-07... So we needed magic bands" in the article. (Paraphrased)
A quip of Lunacy/idiocy...
How'd they find that, actually?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Intent to return rates and intent to promote rates are up. Those were lagging during 2007, and now they're trending higher. I'd love to see how they spun those numbers.

My opinion - you should assume 25-50% spin as a given and move on.

I'm not joking...that's an honest opinion

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I also think they just aren't asking now because they don't want answers. It used to be everytime we visited we would get a survey about our experiences but we've been twice since this was implemented and no survey from either visit.

You noticed that too?

I'm glad you brought that up...

I noticed a vastly reduced park presence last week... And I didnt see anybody asking questions...

So I ran a little experiment.

I walked into EPCOT after quickly making the Mickey spin and walked right in front of a research nametag and slowed...
She waved at me.

Turned around 25 feet by and watched here ask a couple of high schoolers with a tour group (shirts snd lanyards) short questions...one was probably a chaperone.

Hmmm...
Just an example...I invite anyone else out to test the theory.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Well I think the big point to this article was the backstory and how this came about. How the imagineers were against it and how leadership changed many times during the development. As for what everyone should get I've heard Disneys target number they have studied is if a guest gets 10 experiences in a day they are happy, that includes rides, parades, shows, meet and greets etc. so if I ride my 3 rides eat at BOG, meet Mickey and Anna and Elsa, watch the parade, go to a show, watch MSEP, and then wishes, That's 10. That's actually probably not a terrible day for the typical guest. For us Disers we would want more. We are also outnumbered by the typical first timer or every 5 years or so type guest. I will say however this is the best non-disney pushed article I've seen. There isn't disney pixie dust spread all over trying to sell it as the best thing since sliced bread.

10 experiences are indeed a good day, but what's controversial is where Disney has spent its money to insure that most guests get their 10. Instead of putting more milk and butter on the shelves so everybody can get some, they decided to strongly push people to reserve their milk and butter weeks in advance, at the same time suggesting to inexperienced shoppers to "try the margarine and powdered milk it's great!" In a word (ok 2 words) ... rationing and substitution.

 

[clsteve]

Indeed, I clearly marked that could be spin. I'm pretty much 100% in agreement on that.

Where did you see "the author took the suits' word?" I'm not sure that I saw that substantiated by any language in his article or on the Q&A. In fact it seems like quite the opposite. He's confident in that number. He's had it in his own word's "substantiated by multiple sources." He said specifically "And the fact is, one thing that became increasingly stressful for teams as the program continued on is that they were running out of resources to complete NGE." Notice he said that it was stressful for the teams. He talked to the frontline soldiers. Not the "suits" exclusively.

His words in his article stated the budget was set in 2010/11 at 1 billion. His words in the article stated that it was "overly ambitious" to hit the Feb 2011 date. His words in the article highlighted the need to bring in very costly Partners to right the ship.

The project was 2 1/2 years delayed after the BoD set the budget

He took at face value from Staggs that the Project really had no end date and even finished under budget - without even the insightful journalistic follow up of "Huh??!!"

I mean, for a journal with "Company" in it's name - Really?

Not one question for clarification. So yes, he took their word for it.....

 

[rteetz]

His words in his article stated the budget was set in 2010/11 at 1 billion. His words in the article stated that it was "overly ambitious" to hit the Feb 2011 date. His words in the article highlighted the need to bring in very costly Partners to right the ship.

The project was 2 1/2 years delayed after the BoD set the budget

He took at face value from Staggs that the Project really had no end date and even finished under budget - without even the insightful journalistic follow up of "Huh??!!"

I mean, for a journal with "Company" in it's name - Really?

Not one question for clarification. So yes, he took their word for it.....

According to the article " Sources say that the early target date to deliver MyMagic+ was February 2012" the budget was approved in February 2011 and they wanted it in the parks by February 2012. One year. So it was more like a year and a half delayed.